3 responses from Mr Philip Watkinson (Individual)
1. Mr Philip Watkinson (Individual) : 17 Apr 2012 16:24:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Paragraph No.
0.0 Whole Document
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations
Ref: Roosebeck RN207 & RN208
(On behalf of Mrs J.M. Newton, 1 West Meadows Road, Cleadon, Sunderland, SR6 7TX : proposer/landowner)
Sound ? Absolutely not.
The proposal submitted in respect of the above sites was included in a fully comprehensive document, which was detailed and specific, and aligned with the relevant national, regional and local planning ‘targets’, thus making the proposal a wholly valid one for inclusion within the LDF. (i.e. befitting with the aims and objectives as set down within the Local Plan, Structure Plan, IPATH & RSS). Each aspect of the proposal was given ‘sound’ planning reasons (i.e. detail of planning compliance specified) within this proposal document.
i.e. The submission gave full and detailed reasoning to support how appropriate it was on all the required planning levels.
The response to this submission was not even an acknowledgement ? No contact was made directly with me, or Mrs J.M. Newton (the landowner) by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC).
The next stage was the ‘consultation’ feedback, in response to comments/reasons given online (not following any direct discussion/consultation with myself or the ‘proposer’) as to why the sites might be excluded from the next stage of the process.
I therefore gave my response to these ‘reasons’ on 15th April 2011. I gave full, detailed and valid reasons to counter each and every one of the points in question, consequent from which there was no apparent/valid reason for SLDC to even consider the exclusion of these sites, certainly not at that stage and without discussing the issues directly and without giving a (written) response to the ‘counter’ points that I had set out in my response.
The only response from SLDC was an acknowledgement of receipt (26.4.11) wrongly referring to me as Mr Wilkinson, not Mr Watkinson. In hindsight this was indicative of the cursory consideration which this proposal has received generally, and the nature by which the matter has been handled, i.e. poorly, if at all, and in an inappropriately dismissive manner.
This is self-evident from the fact that no response whatsoever has ever been given, either to the proposal itself, nor the wholly valid response I had given to the ‘initial’ consultation period, as referred to above.
No response at all during this whole so called ‘consultation’ period(s) – neither to myself, nor the landowner (proposer).
In these circumstances it can in no way represent any form of consultation. It is insulting to suggest that it has been.
On 19th July 2011, Mrs Newton received a ‘standard’ letter advising of the ‘process’ for the next stage of public consultation. There was no reference to the specific sites proposed by Mrs Newton, the initial document submitted, or the comments made in regard to the initial consultation period.
On 29th July 2011 a request was received (via e-mail & a letter dated 28th July 2011 to Mrs Newton) for ‘general’ views on ‘peripheral’ / procedural matters of the process, but still no mention of, or response to, any of the representation made on behalf of Mrs Newton in respect of the site proposals put forward.
I then submitted comments in regard to each of the three items for which such comments had been requested. This was on 9th September 2011, having waited patiently for ‘feedback’ from SLDC on the specific representation previously submitted, but not a thing had been forthcoming from them.
In my response (9th Sept 2011) I expressed my surprise that neither myself or Mrs Newton had been contacted at all in regard to the proposal, and reminded SLDC that the offer had been made to discuss the proposal, and the willingness had been expressed for myself and Mrs Newton to meet with them, on site, or wherever else they felt appropriate to do so.
I also reiterated this willingness to meet/discuss at the end of my e-mail to SLDC.
I again made representation to support and justify the appropriateness of the sites for inclusion within the LDF.
The SLDC response ? Nothing (again), other than the posting of my e-mail on their website, which in summary stated my (Mrs Newton’s) opposition to our own site !
In response to the fully justified proposal, and the wholly valid counter arguments to SLDC’s attempts to justify exclusion of these sites, no response at all was forthcoming from SLDC. In all that time, there had been nothing, nor had they responded to the repeated offers for a meeting to discuss the proposal put to them.
The only ‘response’ had been an acknowledgement of receipt addressing me by the wrong name, and a posting on their website stating ‘opposition’ to our own proposal ?
This has not only been unprofessional, it has been incompetent, and the total lack of any form of communication, as well as being entirely inappropriate, renders SLDC incapable of making any judgement as regards the exclusion of these sites from the LDF without first having done this. It should have been discussed, in detail, and in person, with myself and the proposer, and any decision (whatever that may have been) should have been confirmed, with full reasoning given (for or against), in writing.
The LDF is an ‘in principle’ document, subject to the agreement thereafter of site specific details of any development, and it has also been made clear throughout that there was an entirely flexible approach to these sites, in regard to all facets of any proposed development, from the overall size (both area and number of units), percentage of affordable housing provision, etc.
All of this could (and should) have been discussed between the parties. No decision as regards allocation could have been rightly made without this dialogue, but the attitude/approach by SLDC (i.e. none) has not facilitated these necessary consultations, which would have constituted an appropriate consultation process, rather than the farcical and inappropriate ‘consultation process’ which has become apparent through this absence of dialogue, of any description, with the actual landowner/proposer.
This does not constitute a proper consultation process, let alone a ‘sound’ one, but instead represents only the ‘appearance’ of a due process. They have failed to give full and considered appraisal to all sites, evidenced through the absence of any form of communication, dialogue or response to representations made, specific site proposals, and their proposers.
Consultation ? What consultation ?
Farcical, inappropriate and far from ‘sound’.
3.1 DPD Justified
Research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts.
Failure to undertake any communication with a proposer/landowner cannot possibly satisfy a criteria for research/fact finding.
Robust and credible evidence ? Research ? Fact Finding ?
In case there is still any lingering doubts as to my opinion on the Land Allocations DPD - process/consultation:
NOT SOUND
(The sound of silence)
N.B. Immediate confirmation of receipt of this document is required.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
see above (1.3)
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
2. Mr Philip Watkinson (Individual) : 11 May 2012 15:40:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
RN207
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations
Ref: Roosebeck RN207 & RN208
(On behalf of Mrs J.M. Newton, 1 West Meadows Road, Cleadon, Sunderland, SR6 7TX : proposer/landowner)
Sound ? Absolutely not.
The proposal submitted in respect of the above sites was included in a fully comprehensive document, which was detailed and specific, and aligned with the relevant national, regional and local planning ‘targets’, thus making the proposal a wholly valid one for inclusion within the LDF. (i.e. befitting with the aims and objectives as set down within the Local Plan, Structure Plan, IPATH & RSS). Each aspect of the proposal was given ‘sound’ planning reasons (i.e. detail of planning compliance specified) within this proposal document.
i.e. The submission gave full and detailed reasoning to support how appropriate it was on all the required planning levels.
The response to this submission was not even an acknowledgement ? No contact was made directly with me, or Mrs J.M. Newton (the landowner) by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC).
The next stage was the ‘consultation’ feedback, in response to comments/reasons given online (not following any direct discussion/consultation with myself or the ‘proposer’) as to why the sites might be excluded from the next stage of the process.
I therefore gave my response to these ‘reasons’ on 15th April 2011. I gave full, detailed and valid reasons to counter each and every one of the points in question, consequent from which there was no apparent/valid reason for SLDC to even consider the exclusion of these sites, certainly not at that stage and without discussing the issues directly and without giving a (written) response to the ‘counter’ points that I had set out in my response.
The only response from SLDC was an acknowledgement of receipt (26.4.11) wrongly referring to me as Mr Wilkinson, not Mr Watkinson. In hindsight this was indicative of the cursory consideration which this proposal has received generally, and the nature by which the matter has been handled, i.e. poorly, if at all, and in an inappropriately dismissive manner.
This is self-evident from the fact that no response whatsoever has ever been given, either to the proposal itself, nor the wholly valid response I had given to the ‘initial’ consultation period, as referred to above.
No response at all during this whole so called ‘consultation’ period(s) – neither to myself, nor the landowner (proposer).
In these circumstances it can in no way represent any form of consultation. It is insulting to suggest that it has been.
On 19th July 2011, Mrs Newton received a ‘standard’ letter advising of the ‘process’ for the next stage of public consultation. There was no reference to the specific sites proposed by Mrs Newton, the initial document submitted, or the comments made in regard to the initial consultation period.
On 29th July 2011 a request was received (via e-mail & a letter dated 28th July 2011 to Mrs Newton) for ‘general’ views on ‘peripheral’ / procedural matters of the process, but still no mention of, or response to, any of the representation made on behalf of Mrs Newton in respect of the site proposals put forward.
I then submitted comments in regard to each of the three items for which such comments had been requested. This was on 9th September 2011, having waited patiently for ‘feedback’ from SLDC on the specific representation previously submitted, but not a thing had been forthcoming from them.
In my response (9th Sept 2011) I expressed my surprise that neither myself or Mrs Newton had been contacted at all in regard to the proposal, and reminded SLDC that the offer had been made to discuss the proposal, and the willingness had been expressed for myself and Mrs Newton to meet with them, on site, or wherever else they felt appropriate to do so.
I also reiterated this willingness to meet/discuss at the end of my e-mail to SLDC.
I again made representation to support and justify the appropriateness of the sites for inclusion within the LDF.
The SLDC response ? Nothing (again), other than the posting of my e-mail on their website, which in summary stated my (Mrs Newton’s) opposition to our own site !
In response to the fully justified proposal, and the wholly valid counter arguments to SLDC’s attempts to justify exclusion of these sites, no response at all was forthcoming from SLDC. In all that time, there had been nothing, nor had they responded to the repeated offers for a meeting to discuss the proposal put to them.
The only ‘response’ had been an acknowledgement of receipt addressing me by the wrong name, and a posting on their website stating ‘opposition’ to our own proposal ?
This has not only been unprofessional, it has been incompetent, and the total lack of any form of communication, as well as being entirely inappropriate, renders SLDC incapable of making any judgement as regards the exclusion of these sites from the LDF without first having done this. It should have been discussed, in detail, and in person, with myself and the proposer, and any decision (whatever that may have been) should have been confirmed, with full reasoning given (for or against), in writing.
The LDF is an ‘in principle’ document, subject to the agreement thereafter of site specific details of any development, and it has also been made clear throughout that there was an entirely flexible approach to these sites, in regard to all facets of any proposed development, from the overall size (both area and number of units), percentage of affordable housing provision, etc.
All of this could (and should) have been discussed between the parties. No decision as regards allocation could have been rightly made without this dialogue, but the attitude/approach by SLDC (i.e. none) has not facilitated these necessary consultations, which would have constituted an appropriate consultation process, rather than the farcical and inappropriate ‘consultation process’ which has become apparent through this absence of dialogue, of any description, with the actual landowner/proposer.
This does not constitute a proper consultation process, let alone a ‘sound’ one, but instead represents only the ‘appearance’ of a due process. They have failed to give full and considered appraisal to all sites, evidenced through the absence of any form of communication, dialogue or response to representations made, specific site proposals, and their proposers.
Consultation ? What consultation ?
Farcical, inappropriate and far from ‘sound’.
3.1 DPD Justified
Research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts.
Failure to undertake any communication with a proposer/landowner cannot possibly satisfy a criteria for research/fact finding.
Robust and credible evidence ? Research ? Fact Finding ?
In case there is still any lingering doubts as to my opinion on the Land Allocations DPD - process/consultation:
NOT SOUND
(The sound of silence)
N.B. Immediate confirmation of receipt of this document is required.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
Yes
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
see above (1.3)
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me
3. Mr Philip Watkinson (Individual) : 11 May 2012 15:43:00
Before completing this online representation please tick the box to show you have read the 'Guidance Notes for Making a Representation'
I have read the guidance notes
Policy/Site No.
LA1.3 Housing Allocations - Site Omission
If you have selected a ‘Site omission’ please enter the site reference or location and relevant policy below
RN208
1.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is legally compliant?
No
1.2 If NO please identify which test of legal compliance your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 1.3.
The Land Allocations Document (DPD) is not within the Local Development Scheme and the key stages have not been followed
1.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD legally compliant, having regard to the test you have identified at question 1.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
South Lakeland Local Development Framework
Land Allocations
Ref: Roosebeck RN207 & RN208
(On behalf of Mrs J.M. Newton, 1 West Meadows Road, Cleadon, Sunderland, SR6 7TX : proposer/landowner)
Sound ? Absolutely not.
The proposal submitted in respect of the above sites was included in a fully comprehensive document, which was detailed and specific, and aligned with the relevant national, regional and local planning ‘targets’, thus making the proposal a wholly valid one for inclusion within the LDF. (i.e. befitting with the aims and objectives as set down within the Local Plan, Structure Plan, IPATH & RSS). Each aspect of the proposal was given ‘sound’ planning reasons (i.e. detail of planning compliance specified) within this proposal document.
i.e. The submission gave full and detailed reasoning to support how appropriate it was on all the required planning levels.
The response to this submission was not even an acknowledgement ? No contact was made directly with me, or Mrs J.M. Newton (the landowner) by South Lakeland District Council (SLDC).
The next stage was the ‘consultation’ feedback, in response to comments/reasons given online (not following any direct discussion/consultation with myself or the ‘proposer’) as to why the sites might be excluded from the next stage of the process.
I therefore gave my response to these ‘reasons’ on 15th April 2011. I gave full, detailed and valid reasons to counter each and every one of the points in question, consequent from which there was no apparent/valid reason for SLDC to even consider the exclusion of these sites, certainly not at that stage and without discussing the issues directly and without giving a (written) response to the ‘counter’ points that I had set out in my response.
The only response from SLDC was an acknowledgement of receipt (26.4.11) wrongly referring to me as Mr Wilkinson, not Mr Watkinson. In hindsight this was indicative of the cursory consideration which this proposal has received generally, and the nature by which the matter has been handled, i.e. poorly, if at all, and in an inappropriately dismissive manner.
This is self-evident from the fact that no response whatsoever has ever been given, either to the proposal itself, nor the wholly valid response I had given to the ‘initial’ consultation period, as referred to above.
No response at all during this whole so called ‘consultation’ period(s) – neither to myself, nor the landowner (proposer).
In these circumstances it can in no way represent any form of consultation. It is insulting to suggest that it has been.
On 19th July 2011, Mrs Newton received a ‘standard’ letter advising of the ‘process’ for the next stage of public consultation. There was no reference to the specific sites proposed by Mrs Newton, the initial document submitted, or the comments made in regard to the initial consultation period.
On 29th July 2011 a request was received (via e-mail & a letter dated 28th July 2011 to Mrs Newton) for ‘general’ views on ‘peripheral’ / procedural matters of the process, but still no mention of, or response to, any of the representation made on behalf of Mrs Newton in respect of the site proposals put forward.
I then submitted comments in regard to each of the three items for which such comments had been requested. This was on 9th September 2011, having waited patiently for ‘feedback’ from SLDC on the specific representation previously submitted, but not a thing had been forthcoming from them.
In my response (9th Sept 2011) I expressed my surprise that neither myself or Mrs Newton had been contacted at all in regard to the proposal, and reminded SLDC that the offer had been made to discuss the proposal, and the willingness had been expressed for myself and Mrs Newton to meet with them, on site, or wherever else they felt appropriate to do so.
I also reiterated this willingness to meet/discuss at the end of my e-mail to SLDC.
I again made representation to support and justify the appropriateness of the sites for inclusion within the LDF.
The SLDC response ? Nothing (again), other than the posting of my e-mail on their website, which in summary stated my (Mrs Newton’s) opposition to our own site !
In response to the fully justified proposal, and the wholly valid counter arguments to SLDC’s attempts to justify exclusion of these sites, no response at all was forthcoming from SLDC. In all that time, there had been nothing, nor had they responded to the repeated offers for a meeting to discuss the proposal put to them.
The only ‘response’ had been an acknowledgement of receipt addressing me by the wrong name, and a posting on their website stating ‘opposition’ to our own proposal ?
This has not only been unprofessional, it has been incompetent, and the total lack of any form of communication, as well as being entirely inappropriate, renders SLDC incapable of making any judgement as regards the exclusion of these sites from the LDF without first having done this. It should have been discussed, in detail, and in person, with myself and the proposer, and any decision (whatever that may have been) should have been confirmed, with full reasoning given (for or against), in writing.
The LDF is an ‘in principle’ document, subject to the agreement thereafter of site specific details of any development, and it has also been made clear throughout that there was an entirely flexible approach to these sites, in regard to all facets of any proposed development, from the overall size (both area and number of units), percentage of affordable housing provision, etc.
All of this could (and should) have been discussed between the parties. No decision as regards allocation could have been rightly made without this dialogue, but the attitude/approach by SLDC (i.e. none) has not facilitated these necessary consultations, which would have constituted an appropriate consultation process, rather than the farcical and inappropriate ‘consultation process’ which has become apparent through this absence of dialogue, of any description, with the actual landowner/proposer.
This does not constitute a proper consultation process, let alone a ‘sound’ one, but instead represents only the ‘appearance’ of a due process. They have failed to give full and considered appraisal to all sites, evidenced through the absence of any form of communication, dialogue or response to representations made, specific site proposals, and their proposers.
Consultation ? What consultation ?
Farcical, inappropriate and far from ‘sound’.
3.1 DPD Justified
Research/fact finding: the choices made in the plan are backed up by facts.
Failure to undertake any communication with a proposer/landowner cannot possibly satisfy a criteria for research/fact finding.
Robust and credible evidence ? Research ? Fact Finding ?
In case there is still any lingering doubts as to my opinion on the Land Allocations DPD - process/consultation:
NOT SOUND
(The sound of silence)
N.B. Immediate confirmation of receipt of this document is required.
2.1 Do you consider that the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD is sound?
No
2.2 If NO please identify which test of soundness your representation relates to by selecting the relevant option(s) below and completing section 2.3.
The DPD is not justified in that it is not founded on a robust and credible evidence base and/or is not considered the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
2.3 Please give details of the change(s) you consider necessary to make the South Lakeland District Council Land Allocations DPD sound, having regard to the test you have identified at question 2.2 above.
It would be helpful if you could state your proposed change to the DPD and the reasons why you think it is necessary.
see above (1.3)
3.1 If your representation is seeking a change, do you consider it necessary to participate in the oral part of the examination?
NO, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Please tick the box if you wish to be notified when the document is submitted, published and adopted.
Please notify me